Already said. Its a nonsense proposition that originated in a ridiculously simplistic view of the labour market (essentially corrupting the leisure-consumption trade-off to feed bobbins over a vertical phillips curve). It was since rejected as they realised it didn't work (i.e. we either have to accept unacceptably high poverty or we have to accept progressive marginal rates of tax). The 'rant' actually serves a purpose. It illustrates that you fellows are basing your arguments around unsound understanding of labour relations.
Already stated! A negative income tax would put cash in the hands of many people who cannot manage money and who even after receiving that cash would be no better off than before. For a substantial number of have nots the best way to render assistance is with in kind awards. IE, food stamps, public housing, allowances for clothing and non edible grocery items. (dish and laundry detergent, bath room tissue, et al) What else is there to say about the negative income tax issue?
It is merely an annoyance to anyone that wants to discuss the negative income tax. If you have nothing else to say about the Negative Income Tax then there is nothing for you to post on this thread. I'm no longer a moderator and I haven't brought this to there attention of the current moderators but the Forum Rules do require members to stay on topic. These posts are merely off topic trolling posts that derail the discussion of the topic. I will respectfully ask both of you to be considerate of members that might actually have something to say on the topic itself. That is just a matter of common courtesy INHO.
Personally I believe the concept of one thread one subject is annoying. It is far more convenient to simply discuss everything in one thread rather than keep either a separate tab or separate window open for each point of discussion. Economics could be one subject all discussions relative to economics in ONE thread.
And that is your error. You can't have a detailed understanding of NIT effects without first having an understanding of the labour market. The debate over socialism helps to deliver that. Friedman, for example, has a decidedly simplistic view of the labour market. Its really just an application of the leisure-labour supply trade off (which never made sense as work is not neutral). You've undoubtedly seen such naivety as common application in your travels, particularly with the Austrian brigade abusing the libertarian tag
Milton Friedman that brought the NIT to the forefront in the United States later rejected it. Few seem to be aware of that fact. From my discussions with other Libertarians it is not a tax Libertarians support. Also of note is that many Libertarians reject many aspects of the Austrian economic model.
It doesn't look like you read my comment. I stated that Friedman's whole approach was based on fluff. This demonstrates the importance of understanding the labour market when evaluating the NIT. Fake libertarians, however, might not be aware of that as they ape the simplistic view of Friedman (although, to be fair to Friedman, at least he attempted to model supply & demand)
I'm not a supporter of Friedman finding many flaws with his economic and political philosophy. I'm even critical of Laissez-Faire capitalism that uses a basic assumption that there is no economic discrimination in society. That assumption is flawed and must be addressed by government. There are pragmatic necessities related to this problem that could be addressed in numerous ways but simply pretending they don't exist is not a viable option. What needs to be addressed is economic equality of opportunity and not equality of economic results though. Taxation is just one place were we clearly have a disparity that denies equality of economic opportunity and while it is a limited issue it is of importance because all discrimination under the law needs to be addressed. Taxation must also fund the authorized expenditures of government, regardless of what they might be, and a negative income tax as proposed with arbitrary tax rates and tax credits does not ensure that the authorized expenditures of government will be funded.
Didn't say you were. Laissez Faire doesn't exist. The gain from NIT (although the minimum income guarantee makes more sense as it isn't reliant on an idiotic understanding of labour relations) refers to the integration of tax and benefit systems. You can't use your own dogma to dismiss it; that simply isn't a valid application of economic critique
The economic philosophy of Laissez Faire capitalism most certainly does exist although it has never existed in practice. At best historically there was "Free Market Capitalism" that lacked the regulatory controls of Laissez Faire Capitalism to protect the economic Rights of the Person. Free Market Capitalism allows the violations of the Rights of the Person and is probably best reflected today in the black market trading of illegal drugs. Just because Laissez Faire capitalism hasn't existed previously doesn't imply that it's not the best economic philosophy but that is a discussion for another thread. Today, in the United States, we have Crony Capitalism that reflects a nefarious violation of the economic rights of the Person. Much of that crony capitalism is reflected in our tax codes.
Snake oil salesmen, nothing more. This thread is about NIT, not about myths spread by fake libertarians
What specifically do you disagree with Friedman about? Just curious. (NIT excepted), I disagree with his stance on hard drugs.
Friedman didnt reject the NIT as it was outlined, he objected to how politicians turned it into another layer of welfare through the EITC without removing the other programs. Different. Please continue you socialist v socialist argument on what Libertarians think - uninterrupted by input from people on the other side. I would prefer all out laissez faire capitalism, but the leftist would never allow that much freedom. Friedman had the right idea with a negative income tax as a practical and efficient alternative, but the most you can hope for from the left in my time will be vouchers.
I found the reference to leftists a little amusing, given NIT's similarity to the left's proposal for a minimum income guarantee
MINCOME is based on NIT. It is a practical right wing solution to a left wing issue. It would work too and be cheaper and more efficient. However, there is no control and riches and power to be had for government if you use % rules like I have outlined here. So the left wants nothing of it in practice. Without controlling what people do they get upset. So vouchers are the next most practical step. Not as efficient but more control. The new left wants everything run by government though or funded directly through government decision making to private individuals. That would leftist/fascist solutions to the problem. They love their control as illustrated by the green energy free cash giveaway movement.
The minimum income guarantee is a standard left wing solution to the problem of poverty traps. That its terribly similar to the NIT perhaps helps explain why the right wing tended to shy away from it
OK fine it is left wing. Whatever you want. Can we switch to that and get rid of all the welfare programs? All of them except those that deal withs tall health etc... Problems money can't fix?
It doesn't get rid of all welfare systems. It integrates tax and benefit systems to ensure that no one falls into poverty (however that is calculated)
Wow, the list would be almost endless. Let's just take a few. Friedman believed in economic interventionism by the government to effect results. For example he advocated that the government (Federal Reserve acting as an agent of the government) should control the money supply but that it should do so based upon the GPD to eliminate inflation/deflation of prices. In short if the GDP went up then the Fed would increase the amount of money in circulation and if it went down the Fed would reduce the amount of money in circulation. This can only be accomplished with the use of fiat currency and I oppose fiat currency. The origin of money was that it was a commonly accepted commodity used in the barter system and we should return to that principle with species money (and currency that can be redeemed on demand in species money). If, for example, we were on the "gold standard" (which technically under the law we still are) then the amount of "money" in circulation would basically have doubled since 1950 as the world gold supply has doubled since 1950. Of note though this only applies internally to the United States "money supply" as international trade would be conducted with "legal tender currency" that is a promissory note for goods produced. In short if Americans purchased a TV from Japan then Japan could only redeem those "promissory notes" in American produced goods or services. Friedman advocated "free markets" and not laissez faire capitalism and there is a huge difference between the two. Free markets are a form of "Corporate Capitalism" where enterprise is expected to act in a responsible manner but the history or enterprise shows that it will not act in a responsible manner. Friedman ignored invidious economic discrimination in his theories and yet invidious discrimination that denies equality of economic opportunity is very real. Economic discrimination violates the Rights of the Person to equality of opportunity in society. The government, charged with the responsibility of protecting the Rights of the Person, cannot prevent this economic discrimination and because it cannot prevent the violations of the Rights of the Person then it must mitigate the negative effects of the discrimination. Shall I go on? I would like to go back to the simple point that the Negative Income Tax, as proposed with an arbitrary tax rate and tax credits, will not ensure that authorized government expenditures will be funded and because of this it is not fiscally responsible. Regardless of what the government authorized funds to be spent on it is the responsibility of the People to pay for those expenditures. People mistakenly believe that the "obligation to fund the expenditure" is the government's but in reality the financial obligation to fund the expenditure is the People's obligation. The government's role is to collect the money from the People to pay for the expenditures it authorizes.
The "rightest" don't want laissez faire capitalism either. The "right" favors "free market" (corporate) capitalism and would be very much opposed to laissez faire capitalism. Many people mistakenly believe that laissez faire capitalism is without or with very limited regulation and that is perhaps the greatest misconception there is. The difference in laissez faire capitalism is that the purpose of regulation is to protect the Rights of the Person and that would actually result in more, albeit different, regulations. For example no person (or enterprise) has a Right to Pollute, period. I would anticipate a huge increase in environmental regulations under laissez faire capitalism to protect the Rights of the People as pollution violates the Rights of the Person to live in a world without man-made pollution. Any pollution at all would have to be justified based upon an overwhelming benefit to society that would allow limited pollution by a person or enterprise. "Profit" would not be a valid argument for pollution. I don't see any reduction in regulations like OSHA regulations designed to protect the worker from harm/dangers related to employment. I'd estimate that 99% of all OSHA regulations originated with responsible enterprise that understood that protecting the workers is a necessity and I would anticipate an increase in this form of regulation. We would also need to readdress "property rights" as there are serious flaws in our understanding of the Rights of Property. The "right of property" is established by the labor of the person. My best example of where our understanding of the Right of Property is flawed is that a "person" cannot actually "own land" because "land" is not created by the labor of the person. We did not create the Earth and cannot own the Earth. We can establish a "Right to the Use of the Land" though. For example we build a home on a piece of land we "own the home" because it is a "product of labor" and the use of that "home" establishes the "right of the use of the land" upon which it sits but only so long as that home is being used. If it is abandoned then like any discarded property the "right of property" is lost related to both the home and the use of the land upon which it sits. Where we would see a decrease is in laws, codes, and regulations that are designed to effect economic outcomes and both the "left" and "right" would oppose the abolition of these forms of regulations as they are a primary tool of politicians to gain/retain political power.
He wanted less government meddling in currency and a growth rate of the money supply that increases with the size of the economy. Fiat currency is here to stay, I see merit in his way of handling it. By formula, no bureacrat or politician. Gold could be another form of currency or hedge against inflation if they didnt tax its appreciation. What do you think above a move in that direction? What else, I am curious. Anne Schwartz doesn't agree with bernacke for what its worth. I am not trying to be sarcastic I like reading your posts. It isn't arbitrary at all. It has to be 5% more to cover the gap and the levels were picked because they are high enough to generate enough revenue for current spending. (And a little surplus)
The problem with the "mincome" (a new word for me) as well as government vouchers is that the are both statist solutions of "big government" that the "right" gives nothing lip-service in objecting to. Of course we know that the "right" is a big government proponent despite their claims to the contrary. "Small government" advocacy is one of the great hypocrisies of the "right-wing" in today's political world because the "right-wing" as reflected by the Republican Party (including the Tea Party Republicans) wants big government for it's own politically nefarious reasons.
He gave us monetarism with devastating consequences. Never trust right wingers when it comes to their economic snake oil
How would you prevent foriegn people from converting their "legal tender currency" into Gold? Even assuming you could somehow, the result would be that the value of the legal tender in international trade would have less utility than it currently has, which would result in less value than it currently has. This would drastically drive up prices on imported goods, resulting in economic decline effecting the entire country. That's not a positive. Completely wrong. First, free-markets does not create a corporate capitalism system. Regulated markets cause corporate capitalism. Regulations are inherently costly and expensive. Which business is more able to pay for expensive regulations? The small business, or the multi-national corporations? Well obviously the multinational corporations inherently have more money to spend meeting regulations. As a result regulation of the free-market almost always results in small business being pushed out of the market, in favor of big corporations. Take the auto industry. Before the 60s, there were roughly 100 different brands of cars. Dozens of which were independent manufacturers. From Hudson, Nash-Kelvinator, Packard, Studebaker, Crosley Motors, Tucker, Muntz, and of course AMC. After the regulation happy 60s, and Ralph Naders, and his book of lies, the result was a drastic and rather sudden decline of the independent auto makers. At first, it looked like there would the big 4. AMC bought up most of the remaining independents, leaving only Chysler, Ford and GM. But with ever increasing regulations throughout the 70s, AMC also fell off, leaving the Big 3. Then in the 80s, Chrysler was bought out, and was sold off and bought out again by Fiat. Leaving only the big 2. GM and Ford. During this time, a few attempts to open independent auto manufacturers have been tried. Such as the Bricklin, and Delorean. Both failed rather quickly. Even to this day, there are a few extremely limited auto manufacturers, such as DeLorean Motor Company. This is not the same 1982 company, but a new company founded in 1995. Today, based in Texas, they are building only 20 cars a year. They are doing this intentionally because the regulation on auto companies are not required if your production is under a certain number. In effect, the regulations prevent new upstart car companies from ever being a competition threat to the major corporations. Back in the 60s and 70s, corporations didn't realize how they would benefit from regulation, and were always opposed to it. Today, if you saw Obama signing the new CAFE standards, look who he was surrounded by? All the major auto corporate CEOs. Why are they now supportive of regulations? Because it benefits them, and they know it. Also completely untrue. I've seen Friedman on videos, talking about this. Further, there is no equality of economic opportunity, and can't be. My uncle is an engineer. If I decided to, I could have an inside track into that job, that no one else could possibly have, and no amount of regulation would ever prevent. Further, you don't have a right to an opportunity. You have the right to purse opportunities, but not a right to them. Any attempt to force equality of opportunity, would only result in less opportunity, not more. Which is exactly what Friedman was saying when he talked about this topic, and he's right. Economic history shows as much. So if I work for you, and I authorize myself to spend $50,000 on a new sports car, you are obligated to pay me enough to fund that? It's funny how any time you apply leftist beliefs to themselves, they know better. But when it's applied to everyone else, then its right.
Why would anyone in their right mind say that "fiat currency" is here to stay when it violates the fundamental laws of contract as well as US Statutory Law and the US Constitution? Yes, so far the US Supreme Court has issued a few rulings related to Federal Reserve notes denying redemption in species "lawful money" of the United States but not all of the issues have been adjudicated so far. Here is a lawsuit that I would love to see happen: A State treasurer takes a billion dollars to a Federal Reserve Bank and demands redemption so it can pay it's debts in gold (and silver) coins in accordance with Article I Section 10 which states: The States cannot coin money and are required to use gold and silver coins produced by the US Mint to comply with this provision in the US Constitution. When the US Supreme Court reviewed "Legal Tender Currency" in it's landmark "Juilliard v Greenman" decision it stated that the US government issuing "legal tender currency" in no way affected the ability of the States to obtain "lawful" gold and silver coins from the US government to pay their debts. It created a "caveat" related to "legal tender currency" in that the Federal government could use it, the People could be required to use it, but the States under the US Constitution are still required to only use gold and silver in the payments of their debts. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=110&page=421 [/quote] Based upon the Constitution a State can only pay it's debts in gold and silver coin and the (unenforced) statutory requirement that the Federal Reserve must redeem Federal Reserve notes in "lawful money" in Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › ยง 411 › ("Federal reserve notes.... shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.") I don't believe that the US Supreme Court could reach any decision other than on behalf of the State demanding redemption of Federal Reserve notes in "American Eagle coins" that are the "lawful money" of the United States today. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411 The only problem is that I don't believe that any of the States have the balls to do this because it would bankrupt the Federal Reserve. Just $1 billion represents 20 million ounces of gold in American Gold Eagles (based upon the Gold Coinage Act of 1985) and I don't believe the Federal Reserve can lay it's hands on that much gold coinage. The Secretary of the Treasury is not required to redeem Federal Reserve notes that are issued by the Federal Reserve in gold coinage as Congress has exempted the Treasury from redeeming Federal Reserve notes in gold under statutory law. The Treasury can simply replace Federal Reserve notes with Treasury notes which is fair because the US Treasury didn't receive "lawful money" when it borrowed but instead accepted the promissory notes being issued by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve still has to redeem Federal Reserve notes in Gold but the Treasury does not. It would be a great case if any state had the balls to do it because it really lays the Constitution on the line and, as noted, the Supreme Court would be basically forced to require redemption of the Federal Reserve notes in American Gold Eagles based upon Juilliard v Greenman, the Constitution and statutory law. .
